Analysis of the definition and utility of personal health records using Q methodology.

Kim J, Bates DW - J. Med. Internet Res. (2011)

Bottom Line:
We analyzed the resulting data by using Q methodology-specific software and SPSS.The most disagreed-with Q-statements were (1) the PHR is a paper-based system, and (2) it is most effective to carry the PHR information in USB storage.To maximize the benefits of PHR, activation strategies should be developed and extended across disciplines and professionals so that patients begin to receive the benefits associate with using PHRs.

Affiliation: College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic Of Korea. kim0424@snu.ac.kr

ABSTRACT

Background: Personal health records (PHRs) remain a relatively new technology and concept in practice even though they have been discussed in the literature for more than 50 years. There is no consensus on the definition of a PHR or PHR system even within the professional societies of health information technology.

Objective: Our objective was to analyze and classify the opinions of health information professionals regarding the definitions of the PHR.

Method: Q methodology was used to explore the concept of the PHR. A total of 50 Q-statements were selected and rated by 45 P-samples consisting of health information professionals. We analyzed the resulting data by using Q methodology-specific software and SPSS.

Result: We selected five types of health information professionals' opinions: type I, public interest centered; type II, health information standardization centered; type III, health consumer centered; type IV, health information security centered; and type V, health consumer convenience centered. The Q-statements with the highest levels of agreement were as follows: (1) the PHR is the lifetime record of personal health information, (2) the PHR is the representation of health 2.0, and (3) security is the most important requirement of the PHR. The most disagreed-with Q-statements were (1) the PHR is a paper-based system, and (2) it is most effective to carry the PHR information in USB storage.

Conclusion: Health information professionals agree that PHRs should be lifetime records, that they will be useful as more information is stored electronically, and that data security is paramount. To maximize the benefits of PHR, activation strategies should be developed and extended across disciplines and professionals so that patients begin to receive the benefits associate with using PHRs.

figure3: Sample data entry layout for the Q-sort data in PCQ for Windows.

Mentions:
Q methodology analysis is conducted through special software packages such as PCQ for Windows (PCQ Software, Portland, OR, USA), which we used in the present research (Figure 1). Figure 2 and Figure 3 show representative data layouts. In addition, we used SPSS version 19.0 (IBM Corporation, Somers, NY, USA) to reinforce the data interpretation.

figure3: Sample data entry layout for the Q-sort data in PCQ for Windows.

Mentions:
Q methodology analysis is conducted through special software packages such as PCQ for Windows (PCQ Software, Portland, OR, USA), which we used in the present research (Figure 1). Figure 2 and Figure 3 show representative data layouts. In addition, we used SPSS version 19.0 (IBM Corporation, Somers, NY, USA) to reinforce the data interpretation.

Bottom Line:
We analyzed the resulting data by using Q methodology-specific software and SPSS.The most disagreed-with Q-statements were (1) the PHR is a paper-based system, and (2) it is most effective to carry the PHR information in USB storage.To maximize the benefits of PHR, activation strategies should be developed and extended across disciplines and professionals so that patients begin to receive the benefits associate with using PHRs.

Affiliation:
College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic Of Korea. kim0424@snu.ac.kr

ABSTRACT

Background: Personal health records (PHRs) remain a relatively new technology and concept in practice even though they have been discussed in the literature for more than 50 years. There is no consensus on the definition of a PHR or PHR system even within the professional societies of health information technology.

Objective: Our objective was to analyze and classify the opinions of health information professionals regarding the definitions of the PHR.

Method: Q methodology was used to explore the concept of the PHR. A total of 50 Q-statements were selected and rated by 45 P-samples consisting of health information professionals. We analyzed the resulting data by using Q methodology-specific software and SPSS.

Result: We selected five types of health information professionals' opinions: type I, public interest centered; type II, health information standardization centered; type III, health consumer centered; type IV, health information security centered; and type V, health consumer convenience centered. The Q-statements with the highest levels of agreement were as follows: (1) the PHR is the lifetime record of personal health information, (2) the PHR is the representation of health 2.0, and (3) security is the most important requirement of the PHR. The most disagreed-with Q-statements were (1) the PHR is a paper-based system, and (2) it is most effective to carry the PHR information in USB storage.

Conclusion: Health information professionals agree that PHRs should be lifetime records, that they will be useful as more information is stored electronically, and that data security is paramount. To maximize the benefits of PHR, activation strategies should be developed and extended across disciplines and professionals so that patients begin to receive the benefits associate with using PHRs.